What would be the ethical way of handling this situation?

[Joined2krist]

Hi there, I'm studying the book of Acts and I have been pondering on these situations. When Peter was arrested by Herod to please the Jews, the disciples prayed and God sent an angel to release him but there was a consequence, four of the guards were killed by Herod as a result of this miracle, these were probably innocent men who were bound by law to obey the wicked ruler. On another occasion, Paul and Silas were arrested and while imprisoned they prayed and sang at midnight and God sent an earthquake, they were unbound and free to go but they didn't, they even saved the life of the guard who wanted to commit suicide because he was fully aware of the consequence he would face if the Magistrate discovered that the prisoners had escaped.

Based on ethics, what should Peter have done to save the lives of the four guards, should he have risked his own death while preaching to them so that they live by not running off, what if Paul was killed by his decision to remain?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Hi there, I'm studying the book of Acts and I have been pondering on these situations. When Peter was arrested by Herod to please the Jews, the disciples prayed and God sent an angel to release him but there was a consequence, four of the guards were killed by Herod as a result of this miracle, these were probably innocent men who were bound by law to obey the wicked ruler. On another occasion, Paul and Silas were arrested and while imprisoned they prayed and sang at midnight and God sent an earthquake, they were unbound and free to go but they didn't, they even saved the life of the guard who wanted to commit suicide because he was fully aware of the consequence he would face if the Magistrate discovered that the prisoners had escaped.

Based on ethics, what should Peter have done to save the lives of the four guards, should he have risked his own death while preaching to them so that they live by not running off, what if Paul was killed by his decision to remain?

The guilt of the murder of these four guards was squarely with Herod. There was zero guilt with Peter. A similar scenario is told of in the book 'Silence' by Shusaku Endo. There the brutal shogun would kill new Christians until the missionaries turned themselves in and gave up the Christian faith. What do you do? You keep going. The guilt is not with the missionaries but with the shogun. The blood of the martyrs are the seeds of the Church. That is painful but true.

 

[SongOnTheWind]

Hi there, I'm studying the book of Acts and I have been pondering on these situations. When Peter was arrested by Herod to please the Jews, the disciples prayed and God sent an angel to release him but there was a consequence, four of the guards were killed by Herod as a result of this miracle, these were probably innocent men who were bound by law to obey the wicked ruler. On another occasion, Paul and Silas were arrested and while imprisoned they prayed and sang at midnight and God sent an earthquake, they were unbound and free to go but they didn't, they even saved the life of the guard who wanted to commit suicide because he was fully aware of the consequence he would face if the Magistrate discovered that the prisoners had escaped.

Based on ethics, what should Peter have done to save the lives of the four guards, should he have risked his own death while preaching to them so that they live by not running off, what if Paul was killed by his decision to remain?

Maybe he discovered what happened only after the fact? Otherwise I am sure he would have at least done his utmost to intercede in prayer.

The scriptures say that the disciples were filled with boldness after being baptised with the Holy Spirit, so if Peter had known what was happing, surely he would have had no problem confronting the problem, but what else is there to do but pray, when faced with situations outside of our control?

Being led of the Holy Spirit, I would think Peter would have done his best with what he could.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I disagree with the premise of your OP.

I would compare the Romans killed to the German soldiers found guilty at Nuremberg "for just following orders". These men new what they were doing and it's implications. Not only that, but Roman soldiers and Roman officials had a notorious reputation back in the days of the Gospels for exploiting their authority.


By the way, the people who were killed were actually killed by coming into contact with the Shekinah glory of God, and being in a sinful state etc. So the premise of the question also indirectly makes God out to to be unethical since he obviously knew it would happen and allowed the circumstance to occur.

 

[RDKirk]

Hi there, I'm studying the book of Acts and I have been pondering on these situations. When Peter was arrested by Herod to please the Jews, the disciples prayed and God sent an angel to release him but there was a consequence, four of the guards were killed by Herod as a result of this miracle, these were probably innocent men who were bound by law to obey the wicked ruler. On another occasion, Paul and Silas were arrested and while imprisoned they prayed and sang at midnight and God sent an earthquake, they were unbound and free to go but they didn't, they even saved the life of the guard who wanted to commit suicide because he was fully aware of the consequence he would face if the Magistrate discovered that the prisoners had escaped.

Based on ethics, what should Peter have done to save the lives of the four guards, should he have risked his own death while preaching to them so that they live by not running off, what if Paul was killed by his decision to remain?

In that specific comparison, the difference is that the Philippian jailer explicitly asked for salvation, and his desire for salvation did not spawn spontaneously from that moment, but had been there all along. If Herod's guards had had the same desire for salvation, they'd likely have followed Paul out.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Hi there, I'm studying the book of Acts and I have been pondering on these situations. When Peter was arrested by Herod to please the Jews, the disciples prayed and God sent an angel to release him but there was a consequence, four of the guards were killed by Herod as a result of this miracle, these were probably innocent men who were bound by law to obey the wicked ruler. On another occasion, Paul and Silas were arrested and while imprisoned they prayed and sang at midnight and God sent an earthquake, they were unbound and free to go but they didn't, they even saved the life of the guard who wanted to commit suicide because he was fully aware of the consequence he would face if the Magistrate discovered that the prisoners had escaped.

Based on ethics, what should Peter have done to save the lives of the four guards, should he have risked his own death while preaching to them so that they live by not running off, what if Paul was killed by his decision to remain?

I belive it was completely out of his control.

 

[Tolworth John]

When Peter was arrested by Herod to please the Jews, the disciples prayed and God sent an angel to release him but there was a consequence, four of the guards were killed by Herod as a result of this miracle, these were probably innocent men who were bound by law to obey the wicked ruler.

Why do you blame Peter for the actions of another man?

 

[Joined2krist]

Why do you blame Peter for the actions of another man?

I'm not blaming him, I assumed that like Paul he might have been aware of the implications of running away surely this would mean that the guards would be killed, it could also mean that he might have lost his life if he didn't. After reading what Paul and Silas did when faced with a similar situation it was tempting to compare both, one led to deaths the other led to life, which was more ethical?

 

[Joined2krist]

In that specific comparison, the difference is that the Philippian jailer explicitly asked for salvation, and his desire for salvation did not spawn spontaneously from that moment, but had been there all along. If Herod's guards had had the same desire for salvation, they'd likely have followed Paul out.

Good points but I think the guards were fast asleep

 

[Joined2krist]

The guilt of the murder of these four guards was squarely with Herod. There was zero guilt with Peter. A similar scenario is told of in the book 'Silence' by Shusaku Endo. There the brutal shogun would kill new Christians until the missionaries turned themselves in and gave up the Christian faith. What do you do? You keep going. The guilt is not with the missionaries but with the shogun. The blood of the martyrs are the seeds of the Church. That is painful but true.

You're right in a way, Herod was at fault but just like the Magistrate would have been responsible for the guard's death if he had been allowed to commit suicide, could Peter have saved them like Paul did? just wondering

 

[Joined2krist]

I belive it was completely out of his control.

You're right but could he have intervened?


God bless the apostles, I'm trying to compare both situations, not blaming any of them for they were all great men of God. Perhaps we can all learn from Paul or Peter's handling of both situations by choosing the more ethical option if the need arises

 

[Tolworth John]

I'm not blaming him, I assumed that like Paul he might have been aware of the implications of running away surely this would mean that the guards would be killed, it could also mean that he might have lost his life if he didn't. After reading what Paul and Silas did when faced with a similar situation it was tempting to compare both, one led to deaths the other led to life, which was more ethical?

It is not a direct comparison.
Peter was woken by an angel and told follow me, his chains, the prison doors were all open. He merely obeyed.
In the other incident while doors were opened there chains/stocks were not.

The situations are very different.

 

[renniks]

The Romans in general and soldiers, in particular, were some of the most brutal people in history. I doubt there were any "innocent" Roman soldiers. These were people who cheered for gladiators chopping people into bits. It's hard to imagine how corrupt they were because we live in an age where Christain principles have been absorbed into society to some extent.

I'm sure the soldiers knew the penalty for messing up.

 

[RDKirk]

Good points but I think the guards were fast asleep

So had been the Philippian jailer. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." God knows who they are, and they would have been saved if they would have been drawn to the Lord.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

You're right but could he have intervened?


God bless the apostles, I'm trying to compare both situations, not blaming any of them for they were all great men of God. Perhaps we can all learn from Paul or Peter's handling of both situations by choosing the more ethical option if the need arises

I don't think so. How do you not listen to Gods angels.

 

[o_mlly]

Hi there, I'm studying the book of Acts and I have been pondering on these situations. When Peter was arrested by Herod to please the Jews, the disciples prayed and God sent an angel to release him but there was a consequence, four of the guards were killed by Herod as a result of this miracle, these were probably innocent men who were bound by law to obey the wicked ruler. On another occasion, Paul and Silas were arrested and while imprisoned they prayed and sang at midnight and God sent an earthquake, they were unbound and free to go but they didn't, they even saved the life of the guard who wanted to commit suicide because he was fully aware of the consequence he would face if the Magistrate discovered that the prisoners had escaped.

Based on ethics, what should Peter have done to save the lives of the four guards, should he have risked his own death while preaching to them so that they live by not running off, what if Paul was killed by his decision to remain?

Morality demands virtuous acts but not heroic acts. No virtuous act and, most certainly, no heroic act is possible w/o God's grace to do so. Safe to think that God had other plans for Peter, plans that required he not be in jail in Jerusalem.

 

[Ray Glenn]

Herod had Jewish Guards under his authority killed. Those guards were Sanhedrin Temple Guards. Herod had no authority over Roman Guards.

In the one guard situation, that is a Roman Guard. He was compelled to suicide in the failure of his duties. His suicide would be more merciful than the Roman Guard version.

 

[public hermit]

Based on ethics, what should Peter have done to save the lives of the four guards, should he have risked his own death while preaching to them so that they live by not running off, what if Paul was killed by his decision to remain?

When you contrast the two events, it looks like Paul and Silas do the better thing. But, to be fair to Peter, perhaps the apostles and disciples were learning some things as they went along. Surely, Paul and Silas knew the account of Peter's imprisonment and the consequent death of the guards. Perhaps that was informing their decision to remain? That's not to say Peter's leaving was wrong, per se. What Herod did was wrong. Maybe the notion that others would be killed if Peter was freed wasn't at the forefront of the disciples minds as they prayed so fervently for his release. But as time went along, and they gathered experience, they realized both the power and the responsibility of the faith? Which one looks more like Christ? Paul and Silas did the better thing, in terms of a John 15:12 ethic, I think.

 

[Percivale]

Peter was going to be killed if he stayed, Paul and Silas were not. Their lives were not only important to themselves, but to the growth of the church.

 

[EmethAlethia]

First, understand that there have been many people who have been asked to recant Christ or watch their families killed, and then had it happen before their eyes. Understand that every person has a choice as to what they do with what God gives them. Rom.1:18-32 and that if they make the wrong choice, "for this reason" God delivers them over to the consequences of their choices.

There are things that happen that we are responsible for, and things others are responsible for. We are responsible for OUR choices, not those of others. Sin has three manifestations:

1.) Knowing what God wants us to do and not doing it.

2.) Knowing what God says not to do and doing it anyway.

3.) Not knowing what God says to do or not to do and doing what we please. ("Whatever is not from faith is sin.": not putting in the time and effort to figure out exactly what the word of God says and means on the topic.)

Yes, even when we make the perfect, "sinless" decision, those decisions have consequences. Deny Christ and you and your family live. Your choice determines their outcome. Do you know, really know what your response has to be?